UI with extras

[wank]

[hv=d=n&v=n&e=satxhtxdaqt9xcq9x&s=skj8xxhxdjxxxcaxx]266|200|Scoring: IMP[/hv]

 

1NT 12-14 from north, pass, 2H xfer, 4H, 1 minute pass, pass, double, pass, 4S, 5H, double, pass, pass, redouble.

 

5Hxx was -3. EW asked for a ruling (given by a contributor to this forum) on the grounds that the first double may have been influenced by the slowness of the pass of 4H.

 

NS contended that whatever the right and wrongs of the double, the redouble was wild or gambling on the East hand. Admittedly, East had also paused briefly over 4H to consider a slam try, so his redouble was consistent and shouldn't be considered a double shot at least. Of course double shot and wild or gambling are not the same thing.

 

Comments?

[bluejak]

The double of 4♥ was from the planet Zarg.

 

The redouble was from the planet Zarg.

 

Therefore, I deduce that the ruling was from the planet Zarg where no-one understands bridge.

 

:ph34r:

 

On a more serious note, obviously N/S get 4♥ -1 and a severe lecture on UI.

 

E/W get 4♥ -1 less the difference between 5♥xx -3 and 5♥x -3.

 

If anyone says to me "double shot" I shall ask what that means, looking puzzled.

[cherdanno]

I admit I find the double of 4H so obvious that I would be tempted to double at the table even when partner tanks over 4H.

[peachy]

S has UI from BIT but Pass by S is not a LA, whether N made his call in tempo or out of tempo. Therefore, 4H-1 can never be the result, in my judgment. Rdbl by E was a call that has no logic to it and that is the result E by himself has created for EW.

[Codo]

Like Arend, I find x so obvious that I had bid it even after partner had tanked.

But I guess that you will find enough peers to make pass a LA.

[peachy]

Like Arend, I find x so obvious that I had bid it even after partner had tanked.

But I guess that you will find enough peers to make pass a LA.

Agree. Search long enough or deep enough, and one can find support for nearly any idea.

[gordontd]

I admit I find the double of 4H so obvious that I would be tempted to double at the table even when partner tanks over 4H.

Why is it obvious to double? To say that we have the balance of points, even though it's not clear that we have a fit or that the opponents have a misfit?

[Cyberyeti]

I admit I find the double of 4H so obvious that I would be tempted to double at the table even when partner tanks over 4H.

Why is it obvious to double? To say that we have the balance of points, even though it's not clear that we have a fit or that the opponents have a misfit?

No reason to assume oppos don't have 8 heart tricks and 2 aces, I don't agree it's particularly obvious to double.

[gwnn]

It's obvious because usually if partner has 4 (or 5) card support we'd like to be in 4S (because one of the two contracts will probably make) and if partner has 2 (or gasp 1) card support we think they're going down most of the time. with 3 card support it's fine with us whatever he decides, he's definitely not forced to pull the x with 3 cards. Well of course you may disagree with some or all these premises, but this is why I find it obvious. I would not X after partner's ridiculous tank, however. I would X partner after the board.

[dan_ehh]

I, too, don't think passing 4♥ is a LA, and believe doubling is obvious.

South has not yet transmitted his values, and anything else looks speculative so X is the only choice.

Once in a blue moon the opponents will have 8 ♥ tricks and two aces, but in most other cases they will go down and/or partner will take it out to a making 4♠.

 

So, I think I will let the result stand.

 

Regardless of that, I think once south advertises his values with X, the XX becomes wild and gambling.

[jukmoi]

I admit I find the double of 4H so obvious that I would be tempted to double at the table even when partner tanks over 4H.

I agree with this.

 

Anyway bridge-wise East richly deserves the bottom he got.

[paulg]

Although I would probably double with a little trepidation in a normal auction, I'm surprised that everyone is so adamant that pass is not a LA.

 

If we removed the ♠K and partner had opened a strong 1NT, are you still acting with your six-count at this vulnerability?

 

Paul

[Codo]

I doubt that the majority would rule that pass is no LA. I just understood dan_ehhs post in this way.

 

I would bid 4♠, fully aware that there will be peers who may pass and that I will get a bad score.

 

And in your example 4 spade would still be my choice, but this time, there will be even more players who will pass, so I may even not choose it with an hesitating partner....

[greenender]

Although not as convinced as bluejak of the Zargishness of the double, I agree with his ruling.

 

When we bid 2♥, we did not intend to drive to game. Still less did our actions to date demonstrate a commitment to drive to game. So we do not "have to" double to protect our previously expected score.

 

What has happened since? First, pesky LHO has wandered in at game level. This is AI, and suggests that partner may have little wasted in the ♥ department, and somewhat increases the likelihood that partner has a ♠ fit. This will persuade quite a lot of players not to pass, but I am convinced that enough will still pass for this to be a LA.

 

Second, partner has in weasel fashion told us that it is wrong to pass out 4♥, without being man enough to double or bid on himself. Is doubling carefully avoiding taking advantage of this UI? No, it is not.

 

And for completeness is double suggested? Yes because it caters to whatever partner's borderline action was. If he was thinking of doubling himself, he will float it; if he was thinking of bidding 4♠, he will do that.

 

Fairly close as a bidding problem, but as a ruling, with the modern fierce definition of LAs, not close.

[jallerton]

Without further information, I am inclined to agree with Greenender. However, before reaching a decision, the TD should do the following:

 

1. Ask South why he doubled 4♥.

 

2. Ask East why he redoubed 5♥.

 

3. Conduct a poll of peers of South as a bidding problem at South's second turn to call. Each peer should be asked two questions:

 

(i) What call would you make?

(ii) What other calls, if any, would you seriously consider?

[bluejak]

Having read some of the posts with amazement, it is clear there is another question that also needs answering:

 

If you double, what does it mean?

 

Me, I play it as penalties. But several of the posters seem to play it as optional. Perhaps a slow double is optional, a fast one is penalties. :)

 

One other question: did everyone who think double is obvious notice it was a weak no-trump?

[cherdanno]

Double is takeout for me. Otherwise I wouldn't consider doubling!

[jukmoi]

To me double just shows at least invitational values. Partner will make a guess depending on his ♥ and ♠ holdings.

[gnasher]

I play the double as saying "Bid 4♠ if you have four of them, pass if you have two of them, and otherwise consider your entire hand." That's what we'd want it to mean if we had a 5233 13-count, but it's also what we want it to mean on this hand.

[Codo]

I play the double as saying "Bid 4♠ if you have four of them, pass if you have two of them, and otherwise consider your entire hand." That's what we'd want it to mean if we had a 5233 13-count, but it's also what we want it to mean on this hand.

this and yes it was a weak nt...

[Fluffy]

One other question: did everyone who think double is obvious notice it was a weak no-trump?

I am amazed with all those doubles, I know little about weak NT, but if I had same shape with 5 HCP facing a strong NT I wouldn't ever think of anything but pass.

[jvage]

I also use double here as the majority (takeoutish), and while it is a reasonable bid pass clearly seems like a LA.

 

To Fluffy; I would assume you have 6 and not 5 (3hp less) for the equivalent position facing a 15-17NT?

 

John

[gwnn]

This hand is not really the equivalent situation with some random 5-1-4-3 6 count with a small singleton heart opposite a strong NT

 

-we have exceptional concentration of values

-we have 3 controls which is above average for the HCP count

 

There is no guarantee that if we teleport the 3HCP that the K of S represents now, it will not transform into a bunch of quacks. The K of spades is often a defensive trick if partner has 2 spades, the bunch of quacks will usually be useless both in offence and defence.

 

It would be difficult for me to make an equivalent hand to be honest, I was thinking of

 

Kxxxx

x

xxxx

Kxx

 

or

 

Qxxxx

x

xxxx

Axx

 

but with neither of them is double quite so imperative as this hand opposite a weak NT.

 

From a more simple-minded point of view, the most HCP we expect to be held by our RHO who is over partner, so the more strength we have and the less partner has, the better for our chances both in defence and offence. If you don't agree with this stronger wording, I can rephrase: the most strength outside hearts rates to be in RHO's hand, because he has more slots available. Then our side's combined defensive strength outside hearts is better placed in our hand as opposed to partner's.

[dburn]

Although not as convinced as bluejak of the Zargishness of the double, I agree with his ruling.

 

When we bid 2♥, we did not intend to drive to game.  Still less did our actions to date demonstrate a commitment to drive to game.  So we do not "have to" double to protect our previously expected score.

 

What has happened since?  First, pesky LHO has wandered in at game level.  This is AI, and suggests that partner may have little wasted in the ♥ department, and somewhat increases the likelihood that partner has a ♠ fit.  This will persuade quite a lot of players not to pass, but I am convinced that enough will still pass for this to be a LA.

 

Second, partner has in weasel fashion told us that it is wrong to pass out 4♥, without being man enough to double or bid on himself.  Is doubling carefully avoiding taking advantage of this UI?  No, it is not.

 

And for completeness is double suggested?  Yes because it caters to whatever partner's borderline action was.  If he was thinking of doubling himself, he will float it; if he was thinking of bidding 4♠, he will do that.

 

Fairly close as a bidding problem, but as a ruling, with the modern fierce definition of LAs, not close.

Oh, the modern definition of LAs is not fierce at all. If for example the Director were to consider that cherdanno, peachy, Codo and gwnn are a sufficiently representative sample of players in the same class as South, then it is clear to rule that pass is not a LA. If on the other hand the Director were to consider that bluejak, gordontd, cardsharp and greenender are a sufficiently representative sample of players in the same class as South, then it is clear to rule that pass is a LA.

 

What concerns me a little is how in the general case a Director is supposed to know to what class of players South belongs, and what other players constitute a representative sample of that class. That is, how is one supposed in the general case to "conduct a poll of peers of South as a bidding problem at South's second turn to call", as jallerton suggests?

 

In practice, since there were no uninvolved players of South's class present at the time except for myself, Robert Sheehan and Gunnar Hallberg, I considered the three of us a representative sample of players in the same class as South. None of us would seriously consider passing (and believe me, if Sheehan and I don't pass, then no one should pass). So I ruled that pass was not a LA, and that the table result stood (which meant that the question of whether redouble was wild or gambling action did not arise). This was in effect a Director's ruling that could be appealed, and it would not particularly have surprised me if the decision had been reversed, but the match result rendered an appeal unnecessary.

 

Formerly, of course, I would have had no difficulty at all in disallowing South's double per Law 73. But I'm not supposed to do that any more. Am I, Jeffrey?

[bluejak]

Formerly, of course, I would have had no difficulty at all in disallowing South's double per Law 73. But I'm not supposed to do that any more. Am I, Jeffrey?

Why not?

 

What has changed?